10-10-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

A history of ncighbortiood compl&ints to the Applicant and police, testimony at Planning Commission by neighbors kept awake nights by the music and other noise created by i^licant’s customers, and Chief Good ’s memo to Planning Commission dated June 20,2005, clearly establish that even the current sized operation creates significant noise, inappropriate and illegal use of the municipal parking lot (patrons cars left overnight), motor bikes parking illegally on public sidewalks, and other various violatio ns of city laws. Applicant has said that the new facility will be designed so that these violations will no longer occur. He wever, the track record of applicant is poor in Uiis regard. The city has no obligation to put its residents at risk that applicant will do a better job policing itself and its c'«»omers in a facility over double its current size, especially with the City ’s Police C Tiefs written concerns. There is ample evidence in the record that any expansion of this use would not meet the standard required in Section 78- 916 (2) regarding findings the city must affirmatively make to grant a CUP. 3) Granting an expansion of the CUP with additional conditions is not a realistic solution. It is poor planning by the city to resolve this matter by granting this expansion of the CUP with numerous “conditions ”, such as “the patio should be closed by 10 PM for dining, but remains open for people to go out with out their drinks Oust for a smoke).” Or “only plastic glasses should be allowed on the patio” or “no alcohol shall be consumed on the patio”. This merely set up conditions that cannot be effectively enforced and the resulting increased nuisance problems will create further tensions between residents and applicant. It is also not realistic to believe that musical noise can be contained within a building that has an outdoor patio as customers will be going outside to the patio to smoke regardless of whether the band is playing. The plan has more openings to the outdoors than the present exit to the north. This iqsproach is also not an acceptable solution as the city has not followed up on CUP compliance procedures in the past. When this conditional use was originally granted, the city was to review applicant’s compliance one year after its granting; but the city never conducted that review. Tlie residents have no faith that this time it will he different, especially after ^licant will have invested significant additional dollars in its bar. The most likely result of granting the expansion will be greater enforcement and legal problems for the city. 4) It is highly likely that approving the expanded use will preclude any future viable redeveiopmeat, entry of new neighborhood businesses or expansion of the **park and ride** as all excess capacity in the municipal lot will be consumed by this expansion of the Narrows Saloon. i Lf.W.J